Not really accurate, because God in general is just an idea of a creator of some kind. I don't need to prove that a watch was made at some point.
If it's about proving a specific God then yeah. I could have a logical conversation for why I choose the Christian God.

@TomPholio, I would absolutely love to have that conversation with you.
Also, have you heard of The Athiest Experience? Because they would also love to have that conversation with you. I’ve watched them ask religious people why they believe for a long time, and I’ve never heard a good answer to the question.
I sincerely would love to.

@I Are Lebo, the summed up answer is that I believe in the God of the Bible. I believe he wants the best for each and every person. At a young age I accepted this, and have felt personal confirmation via my experiences and the connection I feel when I pray. As far as other gods are concerned, I haven't come across any religions that I believed were credible (I don't mean they don't count. I just mean as far as having a real diety evidence wise).
Also personally, Christianity fits my worldview. Although it's been shaped by christianity as well. What I mean is that whenever I come to some principle I struggle with about the God of the Bible, I pray and ask for understanding, and I do some research and I've come to, not change my conscience about the issue, but to realize how God fits my conscience already when I truly understand the context.
That leads me to another thing I believe. Everyone has a conscience that is God given and they're always pure and true. However we often get led

@I Are Lebo, ...to believe somethings that aren't true because I believe the devil tries to twist the truth using misconceptions and fallacies, and that's why it seems like people have consciences that don't agree.
I've heard a lot of disputes from people who don't believe in my God, and they always come from a place of morality and a sense of right that is totally correct, except they've just come to a different conclusion than I have, and I think my job as a sharer of my faith is to bridge that gap by finding where our philosophies diverge in logic.
Here's a disclaimer however. I don't claim to speak for all Christians. There may be things I say in this conversation that others disagree with, but I will answer from my experience and what I think fits my worldview and the Christian God.

@TomPholio, there’s a flaw in your argument. The Christian God, the character of God that is in the Bible, is overwhelmingly immoral. Our morality does not come from God, because otherwise we would agree in things like substitutionary atonement, which is really little better than scapegoating. I don’t know what your feelings are regarding the Old Testament versus the New Testament, but both collections of books support slavery, they support the stoning murder of gays and unruly children, they support various other absolutely immoral ideas ranging from sexist to racist.
How do you square away the tales regarding the Hebrews being led by God to commit genocide repeatedly with the idea of God being loving or moral?
More importantly, you have told me what you believe but have not answered the question of why you believe it is true. Unless one is to take the stance that the truth of their beliefs don’t matter as long as they bring comfort and happiness, why they believe matters.

I'll stick to being an Agnostic where I can make believers and atheists both annoyed lol but seriously the Bible has SOME good ideas on how we live life. But now it's just a cult. Believe in somthing yes but do not go crazy with. And stop with the it happened because the bible says so.. it's a book written by humanity.

@nepheal, exactly! I know religion helps people. It helps people get over losses and help with addiction. It helps awhole lotta things. But lets not take it to seriously hm? Live your life by it if you want. But leave others out of it.

@TheKen42, true it seems like there’s terrible people everywhere and the good ones that are left are beat down into submission leaving those to fight the good fight against worse odds. Is it really a surprise this current generation memes about death and suicide?

The burden lies with whomever insults others for their views. If you’re positive enough in your views that you call others an idiot for their beliefs you should be able to provide proof. Believe what you want and even feel free to discuss it with others of differing views. But once you begin insulting their views, not just disagreeing, you should have some actual proof to back up your claim.

I think that God is a better explanation for the hard problem of consciousness than anything else that has been proposed. God as a first cause also seems more probable than an infinite regression of causes. Your mileage may vary.

@PoliticalOtters, i am not really apart of a religion, but I believe in a higher power of some kind because of what I call the why theory. Ever seen that old cartoon with the little girl who won't stop asking why at the end of each answer? You can and should do that with all science. But then where does it end? How did that start? I don't think any bible knows, but I think it's safe to assume something crazy kickstarted it all.

@Dephenistrator, right. I totally get doubting Islam or Christianity or any religion, but to doubt a higher power exists at all seems more illogical than believe there is one and guessing at one that feels right. I believe in the self evidencery of god. That we are in some way a part of him and therefore are capable of understanding him.

@Dephenistrator, what’s interesting is this picture portrays the exact opposite of what the left like him usually believe(ergo kavanaugh) burden of proof is on the accuser but people perform witch hunts without any evidence and condemn someone for simply an accusation with no proof. “She said he did it so she must be right”

@Dephenistrator, in 2019, the webb telescope is being launched with the goal of being able to look at various events that will help us understand how the big bang started and possible before it. Maybe we will know more after that.

@PoliticalOtters, saying it makes more sense that there is a higher power doesn't explain WHY it is a better position. It is just your opinion without a reason.
Without reasons, it becomes this: i don't see why people think chocolate is better than vanilla. It makes more sense to think vanilla is better than chocolate.
I don't see why people think dogs are better than cats. It seems more logical to think cats are better than dogs.
WHY?

@PoliticalOtters, I could say that walls change colors when no one is looking and they can detect when they’re being recorded and observed even through electronic means like cameras you’d think I was insane that’s the way I view arguments like yours faith is not evidence nor is it logic religious faith is a crutch that has long since worn out its usefulness

@Dephenistrator, a philosophical theory holds is that you eventually reach foundational truths that need no “why” in order to be validated. For example, “I think therefore I am” and “2=2” this is more generally used to deny Radical Skepticism in terms of the existence of knowledge rather than religion. Just thought I’d bring it up though bc your point was similar

@Majesticmoose00, human biology and anthropology have shown that it’s completely natural and normal to believe. Scientific studies have shown that religion has played pivotal role in civilization and that cultures that promote it typically have higher life expectancies and quality of life.
I’m not religious but I get it... to an extent. The people that let it control them... that I don’t get.

@PoliticalOtters, how is it more logical to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence than it is to reserve judgement until more information can be attained?
That’s the exact opposite of logical.

@big freedom, this is untrue. There is a direct inverse correlation between the religiosity of a culture and it’s quality of life. More secular countries have lower crime and higher quality of life, on average, than more religious countries.
Rape rates are an especially disturbing example of how the more religious a nation is, the higher the rate of sexual assault.

@CynicalSirr, I'm basically talking about Pascal's wager. It doesn't prove that you should believe in a biblical god or any religion, but does show that to not believe in any high power is unreasonable.

@CynicalSirr, right, but if you're right and no god exists then you lose nothing from having a basic belief in god. If he does exist then you have a lot to lose by not believing in one. This isn't to say join a religion, but that you ought to believe in an order to the universe that's originates from some force or power. I personally believe in the self-evidencery of god as stated above I think.

@PoliticalOtters, was gonna downvote and move on. But I removed my downvote. Reason being is you are right, its logical to believe a higher power is out there. But what is a higher power? What if God was actually a super intelligent alien race? The universe is so large and the possibility of other/parellel univeres really makes the likely hood of a higher power likely. Is it our definition of god? I dont think its logical to have a merciful father who is also jealous and bi polar with his followers.
Really if I had to come up with a definition of God I would say Earth is God. It "created" us. It has a wrath (mother nature) when we do act out of line (see climate change). It has beauty. Every living being (we know of) was created by the conditions of earth. And the fact that the entire universe (as we know it so far) is made of pretty much the same elements & molecules. so we are made in the " image" of Earth & its a physical living being that we quite literally depend on to live.

@PoliticalOtters, Im not saying god does or does not exists. But if there is a hell and I go to it for not believing in a "father" and get tortured. Hes probably not a very good father if he couldnt put his own ego aside and prove his own existence. I wont put my rational thoughts aside for it.
Not trying to argue or say believing is bad. Simple my side of it.

@PoliticalOtters, Pascal’s Wager is idiocy at work. It states that you may as well believe because the consequences of not believing are either nothing or negative, while the consequences of believing are either nothing or positive. This is untrue. Beliefs don’t live in a vacuum, and believing in things without reason leads you to have a flawed epistemology. Then you will make similar stupid decisions.
On top of that, Pascal’s Wager completely fails to account for the possibility that you’ve chosen the wrong religion but that a different religion is actually correct. Pascal starts with the assumption that either no religion is accurate or Christianity is. There are many other possibilities.
The idea of basic theism, of a higher power that wants us to believe it exists without having any specific qualities, is nothing more than waffling. If the Abrahamic God is real, just believing in a higher power isn’t good enough to appease Him anyway, so you’re just performing lip service.

@Majesticmoose00, if it doesn't get delayed AGAIN, then yes, I'm hoping it can do what it brags and get some kind of data from black hole event horizons. More science knowledge however, won't stop the creation of more science questions.

@Ultramatt, my opinion does not need to challenge knowledge or science and I always accept scientific fact. Assuming that there are base physics that work just because, or are there just because is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a religion. When you talk about the start of everything you hit a chicken or the egg level problem. The universe simply shouldn't be here, why would it? If you are assuming it was always there since forever then isn't that also too fantastic? I am not trying to convince anyone to drop science fact for religious beliefs because you don't need to as long as you presume if there is a diety/ies that they made it work that way. Saying that there will be a floor to the operation of physics is saying that there is a point where physics stops and breaks all of it's own rules, which might as well be labeled as magic to me.

@I Are Lebo, the "quality of life" for secular run territories like Mao Zedong's China, Stalin and Lenin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia...and so...produced the bloodiest times in record history with deaths exceeding one-hundred-million. So it's odd that you're saying secular run regiems produce good quality of life, when in fact they've produced the most death????

@Dephenistrator, it seemed to me like you were implying that the creation of more unanswered questions was a bad thing, and I was arguing to the contrary.
Would you mind explaining to me what you meant by “the universe shouldn’t be here”? I don’t understand what you mean by that.

@I Are Lebo, no, I deeply value scientific exploration and read astronomy news more than politics for that very reason. What I was talking about was that it doesn't make sense that we can answer all the questions because every answer would make more questions, hence an either an infinite cycle or eventuality something works inexplicably and is practically magic.
Saying the universe shouldn't be here was kind of shortening the idea of, why does anything exist at all. Shouldn't there just be nothing forever or no forever at all? Just like discovering new laws of physics should make new questions on their machinations, discovering more of the timeline before the big bang should do the same. I am not nailed down to any of this, as I believe being stubborn in science stunts growth for new ideas and discovery, but I feel like no matter how far back we traced things we should hit an unsolvable paradox of dynamics. From either example. Wether it's a god, an alien, or whatever, something -

@Dephenistrator, no need for apologies, but I still don’t see where you are making the logical leap. The only answer I see to the question of “why are we here?” is “I don’t know”. I don’t see how anyone could make the claim as to the likelihood of reality existing. We only have one reality to examine, so as far the evidence goes, the chances of reality existing is 100%.
To claim that nothing is more likely than something is, as far as I can tell, a wholly unsubstantiated claim.

@I Are Lebo, i don't see it as I don't know but as it really shouldn't be that we are here, or anything including the fabric of space. My reasoning is that everything needs an explanation, so the first thing that ever was doesn't have one. Therefore it is broken that there was anything to start with. Whatever was there first, be it the infinite point of the big bang or a larger universe from the theorized 4d universe we bubbled from, simply existed. Whatever the root of everything is, will not have an origin or a beginning. So how is that not broken?
And then there's what I call the stagnation problem. Most likely, whatever material is the root material of everything would be one material (fabric of space, or possibly the smallest particles) either it should settle and be at rest possibly while decaying, or like in the big bang model, have very wild reactions due to effects like gravity at extreme and set off the process that leads to heat death. -

@I Are Lebo, - both or any reaction the source material goes through should be spent or settle entirely. The universe obviously didn't stay settled from the begging so it went through a reaction meaning there's been events happening be they chemical or whatever the universe has not been still. This begs the question as to what set off the universe. At some point it had to start, it makes no sense that it just started for no reason. And sadly the big crunch theory has taken serious damage so the universe doesn't rebound and go through any cycles of crunching and blowing up again. I hope that made sense, i only slept 3 hours today.

@Dephenistrator, it makes sense insofar as the logic you’re using, but you are basing this logic off of several assumptions that have no reason to be assumed. What we label as the universe is only our perception of local spacetime. This is a subjective interpretation, because there is an unknowable amount of reality that exists beyond our perception. It’s foolish to assume that our understanding of reality is complete, and so to assume that the first thing could have no cause is as baseless as it is to assume that there was no first thing and that reality is eternal. We have no way currently of investigating either claim, and so we have no way of calculating the probability of either scenario.
Nothing is broken by not being understood, and the inception of local spacetime is not yet understood. Not having an explanation doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

@I Are Lebo, all good points, i don't however feel my logic can't be placed on any amount of unknown space. Wether there is an infinitely repeating cycle, or a singular evolving event, where was the start? I am saying that even if we knew what started it, what event or law of physics then what caused that to be possible first? Moving the goal post another notch doesn't solve any universal existential problems. I know nothing is broken by not being understood, it is broken because no chain of causality can exist like this. If the first thing has a cause then why did that cause happen? I could ask that forever and the idea that there are infinite explanations for going backward without end is broken and ridiculous. This is like trying to explain a line of dominoes falling by saying there must be one starter domino we can't see that fell first. But then we need to do it again and look for another domino behind that. -

@I Are Lebo, - instead of saying theres infinite dominos we haven't learned about, I think there's a better chance a finger kick started the process.
Also I am very aware that we can only measure around 14 billion lightyears away from us. I am not assuming we know about deeper or distant areas of space and reality and presumed my two examples of widely different universal landscape preluded as such, but I am sleepy and maybe I just rambled

@I Are Lebo, Are you actually saying communisim wasn't secular?!?!?! Hahaha because Lenin would disagree with you. Vladimir Lenin was highly critical of religion, saying in his book Religion: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism." Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1930 to 1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. Communism is a secular idea that's led to the most deaths ever...in ALL of history, hardly what I'd call a "good quality of life" lol.
Also, you're conflating the government's power with how much it's worshiped which is a false equivalency; because a Secular country according to you...would be one with less power given to its government.
So a territory with 99.99% Christians and 0.01% government, in your view, would be secular?!?

@zerozero007, you are completely misinterpreting what I said. What I said was religiosity versus secularism. When you revere the state as the Ultimate Authority, you are not secular. The North Koreans are not secular, and under Mao, neither were the Chinese. They worshipped the leader and revered the state as their Gods. Now, I’m not really certain that same mentality applies to either Lenin or Stalin, but I’m under the impression that similar attitudes were held under their reign that they weren’t merely sovereign, but actually divine. If I’m mistaken about the Marxists, then my classification of them as religious is invalid, and I accept that.
But to claim that communism is a concept of atheism because Stalin was opposed to already founded religions is foolish. He was opposed to them because they were competition for his political power, not because he was fundamentally opposed to their ideals. In addition, Marx also famously said how Capitalism is an intrinsic part of Socialism,

which is in of itself a necessary step to get to Communism. That doesn’t mean that Capitalism is a part of Communism, only that he thought so.
The demographics of a society have nothing to do with the religiosity, but rather the ideals that the society holds sacred. Faith, unwavering belief, ascribing to a set of doctrines rather than a set of principles, those are religious teachings, not secular ones.

@Dephenistrator, the point that I’m trying to make is that your stance that a ‘finger kick’ has a better chance is entirely baseless. There’s zero information to base the assumption of likelihood on. You have no way of evaluating the likelihood, so why would you say it’s more likely?
What has led you to the conclusion that it’s more likely?

@I Are Lebo, So you're doubling down on your false equivalency, and completely ignoring the fact that communist states throughout history have sought to eliminate religion?
Look if you're going to be that intellectually dishonest, then what's the point of arguing with a Neo Marxist NPC.

@I Are Lebo, Hahaha SERIOUSLY?!? Nazi Germany persecuted Christian churches, Hitler embraced determinism, and continually rejected Christianity calling it a Jewish plot to undermine the historic ideals of the Aryan-dominated Roman Empire...if anything he was pantheistic; but yeah, I guess Hitler was Christian because you said so lol!!! Forget all historical records... we have "I Are Lebo" from Funny Pics to decide and make our history????
Like I said, if you can't look at the objective basic facts that secularism has led to the most deaths ever, and be intellectually honest enough to admit it, then what's the point of continuing this

@I Are Lebo, okay, I think I see where your struggling with my point of veiw (i got some more sleep now) ignore the god element specifically, my focus is that things like time and space shouldn't have started because nothing could have started them.or else you would have to explain what started the thing that started that all over again. That is so broken that it might as well be magic that we even began so I fill that in with a god did it. That part is because I don't believe the universe is random, and feel it was more designed in nature. Specifically because of the massive problems and failures in reproducing abiogenesis. But that gets into another issue. The whole point behind the universe shouldn't exist, is no matter what the source material is it breaks continuity so it defies logic and physics.

@I Are Lebo, i am also not trying to say the finger kick has a better chance, i am emphasizing that there is an end to the scientific methods capabilities to study aspects of the universe, there will be remaining questions due to problems such as this

@Dephenistrator, it is not that I am struggling to understand your point of view, it is that I am attempting to point out to you that your stance that time and space could not have started is entirely baseless. Not only is it baseless, but it is illogical. Time cannot start because for time to start requires there to be a time before time, which is a nonsensical statement. You have eliminated the possibility of reality being eternal, for no apparent reason beyond your feelings on the matter, which bear no relevance whatsoever to whatever the actual truth may be.
If reality exists in a state of constant cycles, where each cycle is caused by the previous one, then your stance is both incorrect and illogical, as you have ruled out possibilities without any evidence against them.
On top of that, there has been no demonstration of a God figure at all, which means the stance that a God created reality is not only not an answer to the problem, as there is no answer to the question of what

created God, but also no evidence towards His existence in the first place. The proposition that Universe creating pixies are responsible for reality is every bit as supported as the God proposition, which is to say not at all.
The fact that we do not have an answer to a question does not give us the means to make an answer up and extol that as logical. It is not.
The point that I am making is that your argument seems to be that the universe could not have begun to exist without an external force causing it to be so, and my response is that you do not know that, you have no way of knowing that, and that this is a baseless assumption given the general ignorance of humanity on these matters.

@I Are Lebo, no. You have twisted my words and failed to understand. But you have been dragging this conversation in an easier to argue direction this whole time anyway. I feel like explaining myself again would just be repeating myself so maybe reread this without the straw man concepts. Remember i stated it doesn't even necessarily need to be a god starting everything? Also, the idea that everything was just always here is baseless. Look up the big crunch theory, I mentioned it particularly even though you lied stating I have no evidence of it. The big crunch has been almost entirely ruled out by scientific paradoxes. This isn't a tangent belief. I'm sorry lebo, you completely missed my points. your not even debating me back anymore but rehashing a debate you might have had with someone else of different beliefs

@Dephenistrator, I’m really not certain where you’re getting to that point from. I have never taken the stance that reality is eternal, I’ve taken the stance that I don’t know, but I do know that it has not been ruled out. I am also not familiar with how you suppose a theory like the Big Crunch has been debunked, as it is based on premises that remain impossible to investigate. Even minor research shows the theory to not actually be a theory, but rather a hypothesis.
You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. A logical argument, no matter how well formulated, does not, and never will, count as evidence. You cannot argue something into existence, nor can you change the rules of reality through argument.
There is no demonstration that the universe required external forces to begin, not has there been a demonstration that there even was a beginning to more than our local spacetime.
I’m not attempting to twist your words, I am trying to point out that your premises take as

fact several concepts that have never been demonstrated to be true.
I did not lie saying that you have no evidence for the beginning of the universe, because you don’t. You do not have access to a time machine, nor does the voice of God speak to you to reveal Universal Truth, and so there is no possible way for you to have the information your premises are based on.
If I am wrong, please demonstrate to me why or how I am wrong.

@I Are Lebo, actually theres the twisting again, you lied saying I have no evidence the big crunch doesn't work, and was not taking about the begging of the universe. Please, for the love of god research the big crunch. It is not a religious belief ruling it out just look it up and it's criticism. Please! You don't know what your talking about in that subject.
And suggesting that god talks to me directly means you really didn't get my view on things. I put out enough information to understand my reasons but you think I'm reaching conclusions I'm definitely not.... repeatedly. I think that should be a stopper to this debate as it is no longer one. If you have any more questions reread my posts. If you think that i think the world is impossible without a god then again, reread my posts more slowly. Because a failure to communicate is happening now

@Dephenistrator, “I am not really apart of a religion, but I believe in a higher power of some kind”
“I think it’s safe to assume something crazy kickstarted it all”
“assuming that there are base physics that work just because, or are there just because is as much a leap of faith as believing in a religion”
No it doesn’t. We have evidence that physics work through lengthy experimentation and calculation. We have no evidence for WHY they work, which means to assume a cause, any cause, is a leap of faith. There may not be a reason, there may be a reason. We have no evidence to support either side and so the logical thing to do is to withhold judgement.
I have never argued about what your beliefs are. I don’t know what you believe because I cannot read your mind. I have been arguing against your words and I find that your premise is faulty and so have been attempting to bring that to you.
I have researched the Big Crunch. The fact that the observable universe is still continuing to

accelerate in its expansion is not evidence that it will continue to do so in perpetuity. The hypothesis, even if true, would in all likelihood be unobservable. It’s a non falsifiable hypothesis, which means it is also entirely irrelevant.
We don’t have enough evidence of the beginnings of life, or of the universe, to have a logically sound epistemology based off of the belief in a higher power.
Specifically one that is purportedly responsible for the creation of reality.

@I Are Lebo, you have never heard of the eventual heat death of the universe apparently.... anyway, these quotes probe my point, your taking them horribly and out of context by themselves so let's go through them.
"I am not really apart of any religion but I believe in a higher power of some kind" this doesn't define limits or knowledge of what that higher power is or does at all and you mixed that with later comments with your own assumptions like...
"I think it's safe to assume something crazy kickstarted it all" yes, I think there PROBABLY is something there. The break of continuity (which you failed to logically work through and just dismissed and insulted me by declaring I am not using logic) leads me to think things beyond our physics occur and I personally lean towards that but I also suggested it could be various other possibilities and did not SOLEY rely on a god but again I lean towards intent behind it.
"Assuming that there are base physics that work just because, or are-

@I Are Lebo, - there just because is as mucn a leap of faith as believing in a religion" i don't see anything wrong with this it says nothing about me and is comparing your assumptions that everything should just be there just as crazy as everything needing a start. Hiw did you take that one??

@Dephenistrator, you have a tendency to take criticism as insult, are you aware of that? I have not said anything about your character, positive or negative, during this entire exchange, and so if you have taken insult at my words it is a matter of sensitivity, not of disrespect. If anything, I’ve been significantly over formal with you.
My objection was in specific regard for your assumption that there is a break of continuity at all, an assumption that I see no basis for. We do not know how the universe, or even our presentation of local space time, will end. The Big Crunch was one hypothesis, the heat death of the universe is another. We have been paying attention to the cosmos for such an insignificant amount of time that all of these guesses, educated though they be, are best taken with a proverbial boulder sized grain of salt. It’s not been that long since we were convinced that we were at the centre of reality, and I’m sure there are multiple things we take as truth now that

future generations will laugh at us for and call us fools for believing.
The point, and this has been my sole point all along, is that when we pretend to have the answers for the questions we can’t currently investigate, we do ourselves a disservice and possibly block ourselves off from pursuing the actual truth.
This is an aspect of critical thinking that most, if not all religious people either lack, or do not exercise. I am more inclined to believe the latter. As Matt Dillahunty said, his IQ didn’t go up when he became an atheist.
Going back to the point, what I do not understand is why you keep insisting that there is a point beyond physics or reality. What has led you to the conclusion that such a thing is even possible?

@I Are Lebo, gonna say it again because my reasoning was there this whole time, go back and reread it. I saw that again because you are simply assuming what I said was wrong and impossible, when it's not. There is a severe problem with the beginning or infinite versions of time. You have strengthened my opinion by attempting to disprove me of this by merely saying I'm wrong, and failing to understand deeper levels of causality. I'm not pretending anything and made that crystal clear repeatedly (another off track straw man.) Please, if your goal here was to stamp out my opinion by working through it then stop yourself here. It is possible to convince me otherwise, i am very open to that reality. But your intentions are clearly biasing your arguments so you cannot be the one to do this. Heck, nearly every large response from you contains an off topic rant against religion, or repeatedly forcing "we pretend to have the answers" on me. I did enjoy this at first, but now -

@Dephenistrator, I am not assuming you are wrong, and I am not assuming that what you suggest is impossible. For someone who keeps telling me to read your statements more carefully, you aren’t very adept at following your own advice. I have at no point said the words “you’re wrong”, nor have I alluded to such. You may very well be correct in your assumptions, I don’t know.
The point I will try yet again to make is that the foundation to your premise is flawed because it relies on assumptions about the nature of reality that cannot be investigated and therefore cannot be known. It’s faith, not knowledge.
And if you want to operate by faith, in all honesty, power to you. I hope things work out for you. Sincerely. But from your arguments, it seems to me like you are employing a flawed epistemology, and I am compelled to point this out in the hopes that either you will become aware of the problem, or can enlighten me if in fact it is I who have been mistaken.
I would like to assure you,

the courtesy was not a ruse. I meant no disrespect to you. I am simply extraordinarily high and have been binge watching The Crown on Netflix, and that apparently makes me weirder than usual.
I have enjoyed this debate very much, by the way, so thank you for that.

@big freedom, it is true, historically amd currently, people use the supernatural to explain what they don't understand. People like to have answers and that has been a biological and evolutionary advantage for us which is why it stays around. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't try and explain things in the world though or push their religious views on others when they themselves lack evidence.
Why can't people sort through the positive religious values and keep them while abandoning the supernatural aspect?

@Dephenistrator, of course not.
One of my favorite professors always told us if we didn't have any questions, we didn't understand the topic enough.
We should never stop asking or we lose the ability to find knew knowledge.

@I Are Lebo, man, i am glad you spoke with dephenistrator and had the conversation for me. Fun to read.
You totally have him the entire time and he keeps sneaking in his premise of a higher power without evidence or reason. It was maddening to read.
Not everyone can think logically.
He just can't bring himself to say, "I don't know" which is all any of us can truly say about the origin/reason for the existence of the universe (if there is one).

@Majesticmoose00, no one sane could deny that there have been many positive aspects of religion. Nothing builds communities like religion, nor has anything raised humanity up from savagery and barbarousness like organized religion. But the negatives are pretty extreme, too. Religious attitudes are responsible for a plurality, if not a majority, of the violence humans commit against each other. The faulty logic of most organized religions is also responsible for holding back civilizations from progressing beyond the next step above barbarianism.
The idea that faith equals evidence is a profoundly dangerous one, and has led to so many atrocities across history.
As for Dephenistrator, it was disappointing to me that I could not get him to see that the foundation of his epistemology is critically flawed because he keeps making assumptions about the nature or beginning of reality that are entirely unsubstantiated. That’s all I was trying to do, I wasn’t trying to tell him his beliefs

@The 911 Masturbator, the same thing is also true of those who believe the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job.
There are more than two scenarios. The government telling the truth and the government being responsible are not direct opposites. There is also, for instance, the possible scenario that a combination of incompetence and malice allowed the attack to happen, which is a form of culpability that isn’t direct responsibility.

@I Are Lebo, wrong once again, shjtbag. It's not on me to explain why I don't believe a bullshjt story about how 2 planes made 3 buildings implode. Because THAT sounds more like a conspiracy theory. It's on you to explain why you do.

@I Are Lebo, hey remember that one time I told you to provide scientific evidence that buildings can collapse in on themselves because of fire, and you referred me to a video recorded and well-documented case of controlled demolition of an old apartment building in Pennsylvania and called it evidence. You made an even bigger dumbaas of yourself by adding a mic drop. HAHAHAHAHA! Good times.
But seriously, take your shjtbaggery to someone else's post.

@The 911 Masturbator, just an FYI, you’re employing fallacious reasoning here. It’s a shifting of the burden of proof to simultaneously claim that anyone believing the official story has to explain why they believe it, but doubting it carries no need for explanation.
You’re intellectually dishonest with this stance.

@SimonPetrikov, you’re right and to a lesser degree...not. you make a claim, any claim, for or against something, you need proof. Now people love the term “burden of proof”. What’s going on there is,
Case 1: if a whole bunch of people brought evidence to support A, and we can all visit and explore this evidence anytime, then the one who wants to take A down is the one with the burden of proof.
Case 2: If on the other hand some dude (or dudette, or Apache helicopter) just come out of the blue and starts screaming that B is true (unrelated to A) then the burden of proof is on this guy. Why should we believe this. You never offered proof. The burden lies with you to offer the first proof.
Now the religious types tend to take anecdotal evidence (‘well he said that he saw..’) as evidence and they think this is a Case 1 situation. The atheists say this is case 2 and some anecdotal evidence doesn’t count there fore, not only is it unproven, it is false.
I’m just going to wait for proof.